The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

Intelligence and Jung

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Haicoway
Posts: 66
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Intelligence and Jung

Post by Haicoway » November 3rd, 2018, 6:37 am

I have a woman friend who I regard as the most intelligent person I know. She has a master’s degree from Harvard and is currently engaged in her PhD study of psychology; and has interestingly selected Carl Jung’s individuation as her dissertation topic.

Jung’s theories are largely discredited today. Does anyone on this forum think that a very high level of intelligence might be needed to accept Jung’s tenets? Science is rational, so therefore meaning the province of the cerebral cortex, as opposed to the supposed 95% of the brain that operates unconsciously. But wouldn’t the most complete understanding require the entire brain’s participation, maybe even including the body, which can’t be totally separated from the brain?

Is it possible that the most intelligent answers to psychological, and even philosophical, questions might be contradictory and resonating, like material in the unconscious mind, rather than tidy fixed concepts?

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Burning ghost » November 3rd, 2018, 9:26 am

Jung suffered greatly due to New Age ideas using his words to promote their jargon.

Your analogy of the cerebral cortex and science is tenuous to say the least. Jungian ideas of “archetypes” fall more in line with what we’ve learnt anout genetics. Various therapies he proposed work through to today. Both Fraud and Jung offer a great deal to psychological thought. Jung’s ideas likely suffer more due to the New Age movement misusing them and the fact that he was searching the fringes of human consciousness - which still suffers today from terminological stagnation.
AKA badgerjelly

Haicoway
Posts: 66
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Haicoway » November 3rd, 2018, 10:28 am

Could you elaborate on your correlation between archetypes and genetics? I have often felt that Jung could have strengthened his theories if he had had an understanding of DNA. He attributed archetypes to inheritance without explanation as to how, exactly.

And can you explain why you would say that science isn't in the province of the cerebral cortex, where rationality resides? Science tries to be rational and not subject to the vagaries of unconscious forces. At least from what I know.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Burning ghost » November 3rd, 2018, 11:11 am

Haicoway wrote:
November 3rd, 2018, 10:28 am
Could you elaborate on your correlation between archetypes and genetics? I have often felt that Jung could have strengthened his theories if he had had an understanding of DNA. He attributed archetypes to inheritance without explanation as to how, exactly.

And can you explain why you would say that science isn't in the province of the cerebral cortex, where rationality resides? Science tries to be rational and not subject to the vagaries of unconscious forces. At least from what I know.
I didn’t say the cerebral cortex isn’t in the province of science. That would be stupid.

Where “rationality” resides is not obvious, and probably a false question. Science doesn’t “try” to do anything. Humans do stuff. Don’t confuse the method with reality (not that it is clear what “reality” means.) The so called “unconscious” is not separate - physiologically - from consciousness. There are many technical jargon distinctions that overlap between psychology and neuroscience. “Unconscoius” in Jungian terms is something unlike the general use of unconscious medically and in cognitive neuroscience.

The “archetypes” can easily enough be understood in how they present themselves in human behavior. We only know the “archetypes” as presented to conscious thought (obviously.) Beyond that all we can say is our drives and desires emanate from some “thing”/“where.” In evolutionary terms it isn’t hard to see that some underlying bological “mechanism” presents something we loosely define as “consciousness.”

It may help to look at what “objective” means compared to “subjective.” This goes all the way down to the base of logical propositions. It is the very heart of human inquiry and epistemology.

I find Individuation to be the most important thing Jung talked about. All this said it is too easy to cast Jung in whatever light you wish to. He did some intense research and managed to pin together some really amazing ideas about “self” and the human condition. Some things he says I take with a pinch of salt though (as is the case with almost anyone that interests me.)
AKA badgerjelly

Haicoway
Posts: 66
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Haicoway » November 3rd, 2018, 11:39 am

Thank you. I'll take some time to digest what you said. I will say, though, that you present with an edge, like so many others on this forum, for some reason. Yes, I said "science tries," but I would hope I could speak familiarly in a casual discussion, when it would be obvious what I meant. Of course I know that people do the trying.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Burning ghost » November 3rd, 2018, 11:47 am

Haicoway wrote:
November 3rd, 2018, 11:39 am
Thank you. I'll take some time to digest what you said. I will say, though, that you present with an edge, like so many others on this forum, for some reason. Yes, I said "science tries," but I would hope I could speak familiarly in a casual discussion, when it would be obvious what I meant. Of course I know that people do the trying.
The obvious is the most difficult to bring ourselves to face. What I meant was that under the skin of “science” are human beings living in the world applying themselves to things for their own subjectively understood purposes - science merely takes on the role of being a pure objective pursuit.

I am not lookg to trip you up or trap you. My aim when I write is to find some clarity. You’d be surprised how many people assume they understand what “science” is and strange some people’s ideas of science are. I was being cautious.

If you have a copy of The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious then delve into Jung’s definition and then compare to the manner in which cognitive neuroscientists define differing states of consciousness.
AKA badgerjelly

Haicoway
Posts: 66
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Haicoway » November 3rd, 2018, 12:20 pm

I help support my girl in earning her doctorate, and I'm trying to understand a little of what she's working on. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in talking with both her and you about the subject.

I do have the TAATCU book and I have read a little of it. And I have seen tidbits of reports of neuroscience research that combine most or all parts of the brain in rationality. Jung seemed to have makd a much sharper distinction between conscious and unconscious aspects of the mind.

Without knowing much about what I am doing, I try very hard to individuate, believing that the inability to do that has lead to some of the most horrific acts by mankind, such as gay beatings and slayings, lynchings, and of course the Holocaust. So in my mind, even if Jung was wrong in a lot of his explanations, his models of the Anima, the Shadow, and the like, and how they are sometimes, and could alternatively be handled, are invaluable.

Haicoway
Posts: 66
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Haicoway » November 3rd, 2018, 12:22 pm

I "made" a pretty big typo, but can't see a mechanism for editing.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Burning ghost » November 3rd, 2018, 12:39 pm

Haicoway wrote:
November 3rd, 2018, 12:22 pm
I "made" a pretty big typo, but can't see a mechanism for editing.
You have to live with your typos here. If you bugger up a quote or something though just inform a mod and they can sort it easily enough.

What the hell is the TAATCU book?
AKA badgerjelly

Haicoway
Posts: 66
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Haicoway » November 3rd, 2018, 12:51 pm

The Archetypes And The Collective Unconscious.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Burning ghost » November 3rd, 2018, 1:40 pm

Oh right! Haha!

I’m guessing you’ve looked at Freud too? It could be worthwhile comparing their differences and similarities if you find Jung harder to interpret. Altered States of Consciousness are also interesting areas to look for scientific data and the lack of data about how psychedelics function ... that is a huge void in medical knowledge!

The biggest problem with psychology is that it’s too tempting to run with one single idea because you’re likely to find/make rational causal connections where there is none. It seems to me progress in the field is made either by pure luck or genius; and sadly the field is plagued with misinterpretations and baseless ideas too. Theory crafting is next to useless today without sound neurological studies to at least partially agree with the hypothesis.

Maybe subscribing to neuroscience and psychology journals would be worth it if you have the time to invest and a passion to learn. If your friend is so knowledgeable about psychology (and I’m assuming especially psychotherapy) then you may be better ignoing that and helping by looking into the cognitive neurosciences.
AKA badgerjelly

Haicoway
Posts: 66
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Haicoway » November 3rd, 2018, 2:06 pm

I will try to find some up-to-date neuroscience books, but I mostly want to be able to converse with my girl about Jung, because I influenced her to add him to her more comprehensive clinical psychology and film making combination curriculum. She's moving to Europe and I won't see her after this spring - I'm 40 years her elder.

While a long time ago I took enough undergraduate courses in psychology for a degree, but switched to chemistry and biology, I never put much stock in what we were taught because of data dearth to prove theory. I reflect on the incredible supposed number of 100 trillion connections in the brain and wonder how anybody can get data out of that mass. (I've read that number in two sources, but it seems impossible.) So I opted for Jung simply for a model framework to feel I understand a little about behavior, whether it's false security or not.

I walked through my shadow door in a Big Dream and defused all the fear that was stored behind it. I incorporated my anima and now celebrate my feminine intuition, etcetera. I watch other people with their shadow reactions and such and feel that I learned something valuable and practical.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Atreyu » November 6th, 2018, 7:32 pm

Haicoway wrote:
November 3rd, 2018, 6:37 am
Is it possible that the most intelligent answers to psychological, and even philosophical, questions might be contradictory and resonating, like material in the unconscious mind, rather than tidy fixed concepts?
Absolutely.

As an example, take the question: Did the Universe have a Beginning, or did it always exist?

Strangely enough, after a lifetime of pondering the question, I've come to the conclusion that the most correct (objective) answer is to say that it both began and yet also always existed.

This is quite illogical and seemingly nonsensical at first glance, but I'm convinced that it's the closest we can come to verbalizing the most objective answer. And there are many other questions like this, in which the best verbalization of the truth will necessarily be contradictory and illogical to the ordinary human mind.

And this is so because the Universe is really beyond our capacity to cognize it....

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2106
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Hereandnow » November 7th, 2018, 9:53 pm

Haicoway wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2018, 6:37 am
Is it possible that the most intelligent answers to psychological, and even philosophical, questions might be contradictory and resonating, like material in the unconscious mind, rather than tidy fixed concepts?

Right, Jung is hard to figure because he took the experiences of the depth of consciousness seriously, and one reason he took things so seriuosly was because he sought such experiences himself. He tells of, prior to sleep, giving himself a directive to wake up directly after a dream so that he could record the dream event while vivid in his mind. After a while he realized that he had tampered with some subtle dynamic, for he had to remove the pistol he kept in his night stand for fear he might, in his sleep, remove it from the drawer and shoot himself. As if the dream had found its way into the world.
The best way to get to the substance of what Jung was on to is to seek out an archetypal encounter simpliciter (as opposed to witnessing them in cultural symbols and complex interpersonal affairs) for such things are possible if we are willing make the effort look for what is "beneath" appearances. Archetypes may seem like "tidy fixed concepts" in the writing, but they are, like Freud's structured psyche, psychological metaphysics, and the theory belies the reality's mysterious and nebulous nature...you know, like everything else.
The universe is indeed beyond our capacity to cognize it, Kierkegaard, Sartre and so many others attest. But the quest for greater experience, this is not so constrained.

Haicoway
Posts: 66
Joined: December 11th, 2014, 7:29 am

Re: Intelligence and Jung

Post by Haicoway » November 8th, 2018, 7:19 am

I snapped a rotator cuff tendon. The intense pain kept me awake, irrespective of any position I attempted to assume. I sadly reflected that my beloved health care provider wife would know what to do if she hadn’t died. For the first time I prayed to her to help me. I felt led to a closet in the hall. On the top shelf a heating pad, which I had never used, and consciously didn’t know it was there, lay folded on the top shelf. I put it on my shoulder and in fifteen minutes the pain was gone.

I think this might be what you are saying: The projection would be that my wife was in Heaven. The simpliciter is how my unconscious psyche knew about the pad and its application.

Post Reply